BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 28/2002 Filed on 17/01/2002 Dated: 15..05..2009 Complainant:
Programme for Community Organisation, a registered Society, registered under Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, P.C.O. Centre, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Co-ordinator – Leelamma Jose. (By Adv. Premjith Nagendran)
Opposite party:
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Housing Centre, Vazhuthacaud P.B.No.2288, Thiruvananthapuram – 10. (By Adv. A.Subramonian) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27..09..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 07..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955 and the complainant's society was registered in the year 1977 with Reg.No.S 178 of 1977. The complainant organisation is a Charitable Society and the objectives of the Society are made for the purpose of Development and Socio-Economic and Cultural Development of weaker sections of Society, especially the fishermen community and other allied activities, which are specifically mentioned in the bye-law of the organisation. The Bye-law No.6 of the complainant society says that the supreme authority of the Society will be the General Body which will consist of all those who are given membership to the Society. As usual the annual meeting of the Society for the year 2000 was held on 31st July 2000. Due notices were given to the members including the Agenda. One of the resolution is signed by 12 members to remove the full membership of Dr. John Kurian, Smt. Nalini Nayak, Sri.A.J.Vijayan and Smt.Aliamma Vijayan for acting against the interest of the complainant society and organizing the parallel association and for other grave indiscipline, Annual Meeting. The resolution removing 4 members mentioned above from full membership was passed by the 2/3rd majority of the members present. It is also decided in the General Body to co-opt, Sri. S.Rymond in the place of Sri.A.J.Vijayan, that the resolution so passed was given effect to and subsequently in August 2000 these four members filed a suit O.S.No.1513/2000 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Trivandrum for an injunction restraining the complainant herein from preventing them from exercising their rights duties and applications as the members of the complainant orgnisation and also restraining Sri.Rymond from acting as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri.A.J. Vijayan. After 7 months the matter was heard and the court passed an order of interim injunction on 7th March, 2001 restraining the complainant society from giving further effect to the impugned resolution dated 31/7/2000 to the extent it removes the above four persons from their primary membership of the organization. At the same time the court refused injunction from restraining Sri.Rymond to act as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri. A.J. Vijayan. The injunction order passed by the Court after 7 months has no effect since the resolution dated 31/7/2000 was given effect immediately. At the most the above four persons will have to await till the final disposal of the Original suit filed by them. When the complainant organisation is functioning peacefully and actively, Sri.A.J. Vijayan exerted undue political pressure through his direct brother, Sri.Antony Raju who was an MLA of the Ruling parties in power at the time. The Minister concerned was the leader of his party. So he obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Trivandrum. 2. Based on this order the Canara Bank passed an order on 9/11/2000 stating that in the light of the instructions of District Registrar, they will not allow the operation of the Accounts. Ext.P3 order was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.31979 of 2000 – F and the Hon'ble High Court ordered notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the District Registrar preventing the complainant from operating the bank account on 15/11/2000, for one month, and thereafter it was extended from time to time. The last order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 6/8/2001 making the stay order until further orders. The stay order granted is still in force and the Original petition is pending. The District Registrar who is the first respondent in the Original petition to the Hon'ble High Court filed a counter-affidavit before the Hon'ble Court on 6/8/2001 stating that "The first respondent (District Registrar) has not directed the Manager to freeze the Bank Account. The first respondent, director has not directed the 2nd respondent (Canara Bank) to freeze the Bank Account". Having failed in all their futile exercise, Sri. A.J.Vijayan and other persons became desperate and tried to capture the management of the complainant society by the man power unauthorisedly and illegally. Therefore the complaint has been filed before the Police authorities by the complainant, for police protection and peaceful functioning of the complainant society. Since the very effective police protection was not given by the police, the complainant moved an O.P.No.20139 of 2001-V before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the court passed an interim direction to the Sub Inspector, Contonment Police Station, Statue, Trivandrum to afford effective police protection to the complainant and their property and the peaceful functioning of the complainant society. It is also made clear in the order that respondents 4 to 7 (Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates) who are membes of the society are free to come to the society for lawful purpose. However if they cause any obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the society, certainly the police will grant protection against their illegal acts also. In the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates. 3. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for 24 months on 21/7/1999 with the opposite party, the rate of interest payable is 10 ½ % per annum (payable quarterly). The maturity date of the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant was 21/7/2001. The complainant informed the opposite party on 3rd December, 2001 that the fixed deposit made by Annexure-H has been matured on 21st July 2001 and that the complainant wish to withdraw the full amount. Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the amount forthwith. To the surprise of the complainant and against all the norms and principles, the opposite party informed the complainant on 12th December 2001 that to enable them to pay the Fixed Deposit Receipt give them a court order to know the authorised signatories of the Programme for Community Organisation. Who are the authorised signatories of the complainant was disclosed to the opposite party at the time of deposit and the opposite party is fully aware, of the authorised signatories of the complainant and thereafter they received the fixed deposit. The opposite party has no jurisdiction or power to refuse the withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount on maturity. It is only a willful authorised intention to refuse to pay and a false excuse. The unauthorised refusal to disburse the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit constitute a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the full Fixed Deposit amount with interest along with compenstion and costs. 4. The opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant Mrs. Leelamma Jose is not the Co-ordinator of "Programme for Community Organization" No.S 178/77 registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. One Leenamma Jose had applied to the opposite party for release of the maturity value of fixed deposit receipt TV 1103/CD claiming that she was the co-ordinator vide letter dated 3/12/2001. On 8/11/2000, the District Registrar (General) had passed an order that the existing members of Programme for Community Organization have got no legal sanctity for operating the accounts in the Canara Bank, Contonment Branch, Thiruvananthapuram as there are some mal-practices in the working of the organisation. It was informed by the organisation vide its circular letter dated 30/7/1999 that the General Body had elected one J.B. Rajan as its Co-ordinator and E.Tajan as its Treasurer. Prior to the letter dated 21/10/2001 sent by Mrs. Leelamma Jose, one N.Wilfred, Secretary had sent a letter dated 18/10/2001 together with the original fixed deposit receipt requesting the amount due as per the fixed deposit of the organisation with the opposite party. Immediately another letter was also sent by P.C. Gomez and Seeta Dasan claiming that they are the co-ordinator and Secretary respectively, requesting to withhold the fixed deposits with the opposite party, until the dispute is settled in the Court of Law. A copy of the plaint filed in the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 24/8/2001 was also sent. The suit was one for declaring one P.C. Gomez, Sita Dasan, E.Tajan, Maglin Peter & A.J.Vijayan as the Managing Committee Members of the organisation. Whether the suit is finally disposed off is not yet known to the opposite party. So it is to be presumed that the suit is still pending. Another suit was also filed by certain other persons/members of the organisation viz. P. Robert and 5 others against Leelamma Jose, P.C.Gomez and District Registrar in which it was prayed to allow the complainants to file suit as per the draft plaint submitted in the case. All these legal steps/proceedings initiated by the members and the so called office bearers led the opposite party not to disburse the amount until and unless, the above said disputes, suits, O.Ps etc are finally disposed off. There is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, by the organisation, with this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, inspite of several requests, unless and until the dispute between the members and the office bearers is settled. This opposite party has no objection in releasing the amount on submission of proper and legal proof by the competent office bearers of the organisation and this opposite party has every right to retain the deposited amount till the production of the same. Moreover, suits and proceedings are pending before the competent courts of law with respect to the title to the amounts deposited with the opposite party. Ignoring the said legal proceedings, if this opposite party releases the amount, the opposite party has to pay the amount again to the proper party. In these circumstances the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs as the complainant has no subsisting right or title to get disbursement of the amount due as per the deposit receipt No.TV/1103/CD issued by this opposite party. 5. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P10 and the opposite party has filed their counter affidavit. Exts. D1 to D9 were marked on the part of the opposite party. 6. From the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration: Whether the act of the opposite party in not disbursing the maturity amount covered by the Fixed Deposit amount justifiable? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for in the complaint?
7. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the complainant organisation has deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as FD No.TV/1103/CD with the opposite party which is evident from Ext.P8. As per Ext.P8, the amount is seen received from Programme for Community Organisation PCO Centre, Spencer Junction, Palayam and the date of maturity is 21/7/2001. The complainant has requested for refund of the maturity value of the deposit amount on 3/12/2003 as per Ext.P9. As per Ext.P10, the opposite party has requested the complainant to produce a court order to know the authorized signatories of Programme for Community Organisation, so as to enable the opposite party to repay the FDR. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether this act of the opposite party is proper and justifiable. 8. The complainant has pleaded in their complaint itself that the peaceful functioning of the organisation has been affected by the act of political pressure by Sri. A.J. Vijayan and he had obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had obtained a stay order as per Ext.P4 wherein interim stay has been extended until further orders. The complainant has further pleaded that Sri. A.J. Vijayan and other persons tried to capture the management of the complainant society by man power unauthorisedly and illegally, and as per the request of the complainant since effective police protection was not given the complainant moved an O.P before the Hon'ble High Court and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J. Vijayan and his associates. From the above it is evident that there are rival groups and internal clashes within the organisation. The opposite party as per Ext.P10 has requested a court order to know the authorised signatory. As per Ext.P9, the complainant has stated that, the fixed deposit receipt will be surrendered on payment of the amount. Without receiving back the fixed deposit receipt whether the opposite party will disburse the amount is yet another aspect. But at this point of time, we are not going into that aspect. It is apparently clear that the complainant has not shown the fixed deposit receipt to the opposite party regarding the said amount or produced before the opposite party any legal proof by the competent office bearers regarding the authorized signatories of the complainant. Moreover, as per Ext.D3, the complainant organisation has issued a letter to the opposite party stating that the account of the complainant organisation will be in the joint names of the co-ordinator, the Secretary and the Treasurer, but withdrawals will be made with the signature of any two of the three office bearers. The complainant do not have a case that they had requested for withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount accordingly. The complainant has no case that inspite of production of proper proof, the amount has not been refunded. Hence the request of the opposite party as per Ext.P10, at this circumstance as there are controversies within the complainant organisation, can only be considered as part of their duty in disbursement of the loan amount and hence genuine and proper. The opposite party has never stated that the amount will not be refunded. The only demand is for the production of a court order for proof of authorised signatory. Considering the sequence of events, we do not think, the opposite party was wrong in claiming proof. In the above circumstance we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed accordingly as the complainant has failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 15th day of May, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad. O.P.No.28/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Amended Bye-laws latest printed issued by the complainant dated 29/10/2000. P2 : Photocopy of letter No.A1-6505/00 dt. 8/11/00 issued by the District Registrar (General), Tvpm. P3 : Copy of letter Ref-SB CORRS/611/00/SRS dt. 9/11/2000 P4 : Copy of stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dt. 6/8/2001 P5 : Photocopy of order passed by the Hon'ble Court dt. 6/8/2001 P6 : Photocopy of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 2/11/2001 P7 : Photocopy of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 26/9/2001 P8 : Photocopy of the deposit receipt No.TV/1103/CD dated 27/7/1999 in favour of the complainant. P9 : Copy of letter dated 12/12/2001 issued by the opp. Party P10 : Copy of letter addressed to the opp.party
Opposite party's witness: NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of letter No.III/Fin-5/PCO dt.30/7/99. D2 : Copy of letter dt. 27/6/01 addressed to the Registrar of Societies. D3 : Copy of letter dt. 30/7/01 addressed to the Manager, HDFC Ltd., Tvpm. D4 : Copy of letter dated 24/8/2001 addressed to the Manager, HDFC. D5 : Copy of letter dated 1/10/2001 addressed to the Ombudsman (Banking) RBI Building, Tvpm. D6 : Copy of letter dated 18/10/01 addressed to K. Radhakrishnan, HDFC, Tvpm. D7 : Copy of letter dated 23/10/2001 addressed to the Manager, HDFC, Tvpm. D8 : Copy of letter dated 3/12/2001 addressed to the M.D., HDFC, Tvpm. D9 : Copy of letter dated 12/12/2001 addressed to the complainant.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 28/2002 Filed on 17/01/2002 Dated: 15..05..2009 Complainant:
Programme for Community Organisation, a registered Society, registered under Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, P.C.O. Centre, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Co-ordinator – Leelamma Jose. (By Adv. Premjith Nagendran)
Opposite party:
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Housing Centre, Vazhuthacaud P.B.No.2288, Thiruvananthapuram – 10. (By Adv. A.Subramonian) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27..09..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 07..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955 and the complainant's society was registered in the year 1977 with Reg.No.S 178 of 1977. The complainant organisation is a Charitable Society and the objectives of the Society are made for the purpose of Development and Socio-Economic and Cultural Development of weaker sections of Society, especially the fishermen community and other allied activities, which are specifically mentioned in the bye-law of the organisation. The Bye-law No.6 of the complainant society says that the supreme authority of the Society will be the General Body which will consist of all those who are given membership to the Society. As usual the annual meeting of the Society for the year 2000 was held on 31st July 2000. Due notices were given to the members including the Agenda. One of the resolution is signed by 12 members to remove the full membership of Dr. John Kurian, Smt. Nalini Nayak, Sri.A.J.Vijayan and Smt.Aliamma Vijayan for acting against the interest of the complainant society and organizing the parallel association and for other grave indiscipline, Annual Meeting. The resolution removing 4 members mentioned above from full membership was passed by the 2/3rd majority of the members present. It is also decided in the General Body to co-opt, Sri. S.Rymond in the place of Sri.A.J.Vijayan, that the resolution so passed was given effect to and subsequently in August 2000 these four members filed a suit O.S.No.1513/2000 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Trivandrum for an injunction restraining the complainant herein from preventing them from exercising their rights duties and applications as the members of the complainant orgnisation and also restraining Sri.Rymond from acting as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri.A.J. Vijayan. After 7 months the matter was heard and the court passed an order of interim injunction on 7th March, 2001 restraining the complainant society from giving further effect to the impugned resolution dated 31/7/2000 to the extent it removes the above four persons from their primary membership of the organization. At the same time the court refused injunction from restraining Sri.Rymond to act as the Managing Committee member in the place of Sri. A.J. Vijayan. The injunction order passed by the Court after 7 months has no effect since the resolution dated 31/7/2000 was given effect immediately. At the most the above four persons will have to await till the final disposal of the Original suit filed by them. When the complainant organisation is functioning peacefully and actively, Sri.A.J. Vijayan exerted undue political pressure through his direct brother, Sri.Antony Raju who was an MLA of the Ruling parties in power at the time. The Minister concerned was the leader of his party. So he obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Trivandrum. 2. Based on this order the Canara Bank passed an order on 9/11/2000 stating that in the light of the instructions of District Registrar, they will not allow the operation of the Accounts. Ext.P3 order was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.31979 of 2000 – F and the Hon'ble High Court ordered notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the District Registrar preventing the complainant from operating the bank account on 15/11/2000, for one month, and thereafter it was extended from time to time. The last order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 6/8/2001 making the stay order until further orders. The stay order granted is still in force and the Original petition is pending. The District Registrar who is the first respondent in the Original petition to the Hon'ble High Court filed a counter-affidavit before the Hon'ble Court on 6/8/2001 stating that "The first respondent (District Registrar) has not directed the Manager to freeze the Bank Account. The first respondent, director has not directed the 2nd respondent (Canara Bank) to freeze the Bank Account". Having failed in all their futile exercise, Sri. A.J.Vijayan and other persons became desperate and tried to capture the management of the complainant society by the man power unauthorisedly and illegally. Therefore the complaint has been filed before the Police authorities by the complainant, for police protection and peaceful functioning of the complainant society. Since the very effective police protection was not given by the police, the complainant moved an O.P.No.20139 of 2001-V before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the court passed an interim direction to the Sub Inspector, Contonment Police Station, Statue, Trivandrum to afford effective police protection to the complainant and their property and the peaceful functioning of the complainant society. It is also made clear in the order that respondents 4 to 7 (Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates) who are membes of the society are free to come to the society for lawful purpose. However if they cause any obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the society, certainly the police will grant protection against their illegal acts also. In the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J.Vijayan and his associates. 3. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for 24 months on 21/7/1999 with the opposite party, the rate of interest payable is 10 ½ % per annum (payable quarterly). The maturity date of the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant was 21/7/2001. The complainant informed the opposite party on 3rd December, 2001 that the fixed deposit made by Annexure-H has been matured on 21st July 2001 and that the complainant wish to withdraw the full amount. Accordingly the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the amount forthwith. To the surprise of the complainant and against all the norms and principles, the opposite party informed the complainant on 12th December 2001 that to enable them to pay the Fixed Deposit Receipt give them a court order to know the authorised signatories of the Programme for Community Organisation. Who are the authorised signatories of the complainant was disclosed to the opposite party at the time of deposit and the opposite party is fully aware, of the authorised signatories of the complainant and thereafter they received the fixed deposit. The opposite party has no jurisdiction or power to refuse the withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount on maturity. It is only a willful authorised intention to refuse to pay and a false excuse. The unauthorised refusal to disburse the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit constitute a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the full Fixed Deposit amount with interest along with compenstion and costs. 4. The opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant Mrs. Leelamma Jose is not the Co-ordinator of "Programme for Community Organization" No.S 178/77 registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. One Leenamma Jose had applied to the opposite party for release of the maturity value of fixed deposit receipt TV 1103/CD claiming that she was the co-ordinator vide letter dated 3/12/2001. On 8/11/2000, the District Registrar (General) had passed an order that the existing members of Programme for Community Organization have got no legal sanctity for operating the accounts in the Canara Bank, Contonment Branch, Thiruvananthapuram as there are some mal-practices in the working of the organisation. It was informed by the organisation vide its circular letter dated 30/7/1999 that the General Body had elected one J.B. Rajan as its Co-ordinator and E.Tajan as its Treasurer. Prior to the letter dated 21/10/2001 sent by Mrs. Leelamma Jose, one N.Wilfred, Secretary had sent a letter dated 18/10/2001 together with the original fixed deposit receipt requesting the amount due as per the fixed deposit of the organisation with the opposite party. Immediately another letter was also sent by P.C. Gomez and Seeta Dasan claiming that they are the co-ordinator and Secretary respectively, requesting to withhold the fixed deposits with the opposite party, until the dispute is settled in the Court of Law. A copy of the plaint filed in the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 24/8/2001 was also sent. The suit was one for declaring one P.C. Gomez, Sita Dasan, E.Tajan, Maglin Peter & A.J.Vijayan as the Managing Committee Members of the organisation. Whether the suit is finally disposed off is not yet known to the opposite party. So it is to be presumed that the suit is still pending. Another suit was also filed by certain other persons/members of the organisation viz. P. Robert and 5 others against Leelamma Jose, P.C.Gomez and District Registrar in which it was prayed to allow the complainants to file suit as per the draft plaint submitted in the case. All these legal steps/proceedings initiated by the members and the so called office bearers led the opposite party not to disburse the amount until and unless, the above said disputes, suits, O.Ps etc are finally disposed off. There is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, by the organisation, with this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, inspite of several requests, unless and until the dispute between the members and the office bearers is settled. This opposite party has no objection in releasing the amount on submission of proper and legal proof by the competent office bearers of the organisation and this opposite party has every right to retain the deposited amount till the production of the same. Moreover, suits and proceedings are pending before the competent courts of law with respect to the title to the amounts deposited with the opposite party. Ignoring the said legal proceedings, if this opposite party releases the amount, the opposite party has to pay the amount again to the proper party. In these circumstances the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs as the complainant has no subsisting right or title to get disbursement of the amount due as per the deposit receipt No.TV/1103/CD issued by this opposite party. 5. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P10 and the opposite party has filed their counter affidavit. Exts. D1 to D9 were marked on the part of the opposite party. 6. From the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration: Whether the act of the opposite party in not disbursing the maturity amount covered by the Fixed Deposit amount justifiable? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for in the complaint?
7. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the complainant organisation has deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as FD No.TV/1103/CD with the opposite party which is evident from Ext.P8. As per Ext.P8, the amount is seen received from Programme for Community Organisation PCO Centre, Spencer Junction, Palayam and the date of maturity is 21/7/2001. The complainant has requested for refund of the maturity value of the deposit amount on 3/12/2003 as per Ext.P9. As per Ext.P10, the opposite party has requested the complainant to produce a court order to know the authorized signatories of Programme for Community Organisation, so as to enable the opposite party to repay the FDR. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether this act of the opposite party is proper and justifiable. 8. The complainant has pleaded in their complaint itself that the peaceful functioning of the organisation has been affected by the act of political pressure by Sri. A.J. Vijayan and he had obtained an order from the District Registrar of Societies against the complainant from operating the bank account of the complainant society, with Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had obtained a stay order as per Ext.P4 wherein interim stay has been extended until further orders. The complainant has further pleaded that Sri. A.J. Vijayan and other persons tried to capture the management of the complainant society by man power unauthorisedly and illegally, and as per the request of the complainant since effective police protection was not given the complainant moved an O.P before the Hon'ble High Court and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court the police authorities granted very effective police protection and thereafter there is no obstruction or trouble from Sri. A.J. Vijayan and his associates. From the above it is evident that there are rival groups and internal clashes within the organisation. The opposite party as per Ext.P10 has requested a court order to know the authorised signatory. As per Ext.P9, the complainant has stated that, the fixed deposit receipt will be surrendered on payment of the amount. Without receiving back the fixed deposit receipt whether the opposite party will disburse the amount is yet another aspect. But at this point of time, we are not going into that aspect. It is apparently clear that the complainant has not shown the fixed deposit receipt to the opposite party regarding the said amount or produced before the opposite party any legal proof by the competent office bearers regarding the authorized signatories of the complainant. Moreover, as per Ext.D3, the complainant organisation has issued a letter to the opposite party stating that the account of the complainant organisation will be in the joint names of the co-ordinator, the Secretary and the Treasurer, but withdrawals will be made with the signature of any two of the three office bearers. The complainant do not have a case that they had requested for withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount accordingly. The complainant has no case that inspite of production of proper proof, the amount has not been refunded. Hence the request of the opposite party as per Ext.P10, at this circumstance as there are controversies within the complainant organisation, can only be considered as part of their duty in disbursement of the loan amount and hence genuine and proper. The opposite party has never stated that the amount will not be refunded. The only demand is for the production of a court order for proof of authorised signatory. Considering the sequence of events, we do not think, the opposite party was wrong in claiming proof. In the above circumstance we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed accordingly as the complainant has failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 15th day of May, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad. O.P.No.28/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Amended Bye-laws latest printed issued by the complainant dated 29/10/2000. P2 : Photocopy of letter No.A1-6505/00 dt. 8/11/00 issued by the District Registrar (General), Tvpm. P3 : Copy of letter Ref-SB CORRS/611/00/SRS dt. 9/11/2000 P4 : Copy of stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dt. 6/8/2001 P5 : Photocopy of order passed by the Hon'ble Court dt. 6/8/2001 P6 : Photocopy of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 2/11/2001 P7 : Photocopy of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 26/9/2001 P8 : Photocopy of the deposit receipt No.TV/1103/CD dated 27/7/1999 in favour of the complainant. P9 : Copy of letter dated 12/12/2001 issued by the opp. Party P10 : Copy of letter addressed to the opp.party
Opposite party's witness: NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of letter No.III/Fin-5/PCO dt.30/7/99. D2 : Copy of letter dt. 27/6/01 addressed to the Registrar of Societies. D3 : Copy of letter dt. 30/7/01 addressed to the Manager, HDFC Ltd., Tvpm. D4 : Copy of letter dated 24/8/2001 addressed to the Manager, HDFC. D5 : Copy of letter dated 1/10/2001 addressed to the Ombudsman (Banking) RBI Building, Tvpm. D6 : Copy of letter dated 18/10/01 addressed to K. Radhakrishnan, HDFC, Tvpm. D7 : Copy of letter dated 23/10/2001 addressed to the Manager, HDFC, Tvpm. D8 : Copy of letter dated 3/12/2001 addressed to the M.D., HDFC, Tvpm. D9 : Copy of letter dated 12/12/2001 addressed to the complainant.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
